http://thefederalist.com/2018/08/07/info...ntrol-see/

"...The companies list repeated violations of their policies as the reason Jones’s materials are no longer on their sites. But this isn’t about whether you like Jones or think he’s a reprehensible human being. Rather, this is about what it means for our society if a few tech companies should be able to decide for everyone what information is available, and what is over the line...."

(08-07-2018 01:16 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-07-2018 12:50 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201...e-over-so/

"...Mr. Watson likened American news outlets and social media outlets to the authoritarian governments and accused them of censorship.

“Whether you love or loathe Infowars, this now confirms that Big Tech is working with legacy media to silence independent media,” he wrote. “In places like Russia, the government shuts down the press, in America, CNN, Apple and Facebook fulfill that role.”

In a follow-up tweet, Mr. Watson included a comparison to China. “This is Chinese-style web control. Here and now. In the west,” he said.

Liberal activists and some news networks had called for Mr. Jones to be restricted or kicked off Twitter as well.

Yet other major players, including WikiLeaks, pushed back. They said Infowars “has frequent nonsense” but also provides a valuable critique of government power.

“Which publisher in the world with millions of subscribers is next to be wiped out for cultural transgression?” WikiLeaks wondered on Twitter.

Best response I've seen so far

First they came for Infowars, and I didn't speak up because I'm not InfoWars

THen they DIDN"T COME for me, because I don't present news stories calling greiving Newtown parents of murdered infants crisis actors

Huh, lots of conspiracy videos on youtube about Sandy Hook, crisis actors etc. Wonder why these accounts have not been deleted? Maybe because they nowhere near the popularity of Info Wars?

I don't like Alex Jones. I hate the fact that he's being silenced. It's a very coordinated effort going down, and it's apparently how certain entities think conservatives should be treated.

(08-08-2018 03:19 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  I don't like Alex Jones. I hate the fact that he's being silenced. It's a very coordinated effort going down, and it's apparently how certain entities think conservatives should be treated.

and they're bold enough to do it right in front ALL OUR FACES!!!

it's a tactical measure by the 21st century robber barons at their finest going into the mids.....

the dems know they don't have a chance other than to limit information.....

what's so funny is how dems never learn from their previous mistakes....

those biatches are scrambling like roaches confined while in the spotlight....

self destruction is always a beautiful thing to watch....

Several extreme African American channels that pushes for all whities to be killed have been suspended as well. All these channels including Alex Jones no matter if they are on the left or on the right get the purged.

(08-08-2018 03:31 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  Several extreme African American channels that pushes for all whities to be killed have been suspended as well. All these channels including Alex Jones no matter if they are on the left or on the right get the purged.

good. One of Farrakhan's speeches was taken down as well.

(08-08-2018 06:43 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

That's one of the best Star Trek episodes ever

https://youtu.be/Jln3mi0vfJU

(08-06-2018 02:51 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 01:50 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(08-06-2018 01:47 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  Alex Jones is a twat. There's a supreme difference between having the freedom of speech and spreading misinformation, peddling conspiracy theories, coordinating targeted harassment towards victims of mass tragedies, and doing it all to profit off of website traffic and ad space. Cry about it all you want, but this is what Alex Jones is guilty of, and this is why he is being removed from these platforms. Anyone who follows and accepts Jones' vitriol as fact is a hair-brained dingus who is probably also a flat-earther.

Link?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world...72301.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati...524148002/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017...tim-father

what if he actually believes all the conspiracy theories?

(08-08-2018 06:43 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

"Isn't it true that the paternal grandfather of whom you speak was not a Vulcan but was in fact a Romulan? That it is Romulan blood you carry and a Romulan heritage that you honor?"

"We're waiting, Mister Tarses."

"On the advice of my counsel I refuse to answer that question, in that the answer may serve to incriminate me."

Today, we are all Simon Tarses.

(08-08-2018 08:12 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  

(08-08-2018 06:43 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

"Isn't it true that the paternal grandfather of whom you speak was not a Vulcan but was in fact a Romulan? That it is Romulan blood you carry and a Romulan heritage that you honor?"

"We're waiting, Mister Tarses."

"On the advice of my counsel I refuse to answer that question, in that the answer may serve to incriminate me."

Today, we are all Simon Tarses.

Lol
Frick you MSM

https://youtu.be/EAdGhMRBbzY

(08-08-2018 08:20 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-08-2018 08:12 PM)thespiritof1976 Wrote:  

(08-08-2018 06:43 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

"Isn't it true that the paternal grandfather of whom you speak was not a Vulcan but was in fact a Romulan? That it is Romulan blood you carry and a Romulan heritage that you honor?"

"We're waiting, Mister Tarses."

"On the advice of my counsel I refuse to answer that question, in that the answer may serve to incriminate me."

Today, we are all Simon Tarses.

Lol
Frick you MSM

https://youtu.be/EAdGhMRBbzY

The left has become the Cardassians.

i don't think it's crazy for people to think crazy things

Remember, it was Alex Jones that woke up a lot of people regarding Chemtrails. Twenty years ago, nobody paid attention to those damn things in the sky. Now ? The word is out that SOMETHING is going on. What exactly ? Well, they certainly aren't vapor contrails.

i didn't know that was alex jones. i thought it was the liberals

http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/40...ig-brother

Good piece on internet companies' censorship.

"Big tech has made a big mistake. Swept up in a wave of political correctness and the fallout from the Russia investigation, many of the largest online platforms have embarked upon a fruitless adventure in censorship that can only further divide rather than unite the nation. These internet companies have lost sight of the most basic principle underlying the First Amendment, that no matter how uncomfortable it makes us, we must put our trust in the power of a free market of ideas....


Just yesterday I personally received a notice from Google disallowing an ad I placed on its platform, one that has been running for weeks, with a cryptic notice mysteriously referring me to the guidelines for political advertising. Only it was not political advertising at all. I placed an ad for a political game, Two Seventy, that I built with friends for fun that allows people to reenact campaigns. But Google’s computers saw the names of political figures and, bingo, I was censored, given no one to call and asked to fill out a form to try to lift this unfair restraint on my speech. This is what will happen with increasing frequency. The automated bots on online platforms can become roving censors unable to understand the true context of what they are reading and, yet, wielding enormous power to delete, downgrade or hide words, pictures and information....


The big tech companies will only find themselves enmeshed in a growing public crossfire if they become active arbiters of content, purveyors of speech codes, and forerunners of a “Bladerunner” future. Congress should remove the content liability exemption from companies exercising too much power over user content. Or, better yet, the industry should adopt a uniform published code with clear standards mirroring the Supreme Court and have tough cases judged by a panel that genuinely has equal numbers of liberals, moderates, and conservatives. Maybe we should have an internet freedom amendment to the Constitution.

As the ACLU once understood well, the very essence of the First Amendment is tolerating speech we hate, and standing up for it takes courage. We need some more of that kind of courage today."

Slate tries, but can't really defend it.

https://slate.com/technology/2018/08/fac...aging.html

"Less than a month ago, Facebook was righteously defending the presence on its platform of Alex Jones, the cruel conspiracy-monger behind Infowars. Banning pages such as his would be “contrary to the basic principles of free speech,” the company tweeted on July 12.

On Monday, Facebook changed its mind. It announced in a blog post that it had taken down four of Jones’ Facebook pages. “We believe in giving people a voice, but we also want everyone using Facebook to feel safe,” the company explained in a blog post.

What changed? Not Facebook’s policies on hate speech, bullying, or graphic violence, which the company says Jones violated. And not Jones, who’s been doing essentially the same nasty shtick for years.

No, what changed was Facebook’s interpretation of the policies—an interpretation that appears to have been driven in large part by public perception. In short, Facebook’s reversal has the whiff of a PR move. And maybe, in a weird way, that’s OK.

In a remarkable coincidence (or not), Facebook’s action on Jones came the morning after Apple took down his podcast (and other Infowars podcasts), and the same morning that Spotify did the same. YouTube quickly followed suit, booting the Alex Jones Channel. Things got so bad for Jones by midday Monday that media platforms were practically racing to take down his content before the news cycle moved on. Even YouPorn banned him.

By Tuesday, Twitter was one of the last major platforms where he still had a presence.
The cascade of crackdowns suggests one of two things. Either Jones was in violation of media platforms’ policies all along, and they never noticed until now; or the platforms moved the goal posts. Neither reflects particularly well on the platforms in terms of the consistency, objectivity, or fairness of their enforcement. Nor does it help that they all seemed to be waiting for one another to make the first move. That’s cowardly....

Right-wing groups will mount pressure campaigns to get them to ban liberal personalities, in the spirit of the recent campaigns against Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn and newly hired New York Times editorial board member Sarah Jeong. Gunn was fired by Disney; Jeong apologized and the Times stuck by her. We can expect similar inconsistencies from the tech platforms as they muddle their way through one controversy after the next.

That sounds bad, and it probably will be. But the reality is that the platforms don’t have it all figured out, and never did. They have objective-sounding policies and some processes in place, sure. But deciding who can and cannot speak on social media is not an easy question, and it can’t be answered without difficult trade-offs. Sooner or later, controversies like this one over Jones were inevitable.

The silver lining behind the fracas is that Facebook, Google, and others are finally being forced to reckon with just how hard these questions are. Making decisions based on public pressure isn’t a great look, but it’s better for giant corporations to be responsive to public pressure than for them to be immune to it. Sometimes that will mean that they make cowardly choices that hurt people unfairly. Other times, it will mean that they realize their policies were flawed and improve them.

It’s a messy process, this taking of responsibility for the content on social media platforms. But it’s a necessary one. And it has only just begun."

(08-08-2018 10:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  Slate tries, but can't really defend it.

https://slate.com/technology/2018/08/fac...aging.html

"Less than a month ago, Facebook was righteously defending the presence on its platform of Alex Jones, the cruel conspiracy-monger behind Infowars. Banning pages such as his would be “contrary to the basic principles of free speech,” the company tweeted on July 12.

On Monday, Facebook changed its mind. It announced in a blog post that it had taken down four of Jones’ Facebook pages. “We believe in giving people a voice, but we also want everyone using Facebook to feel safe,” the company explained in a blog post.

What changed? Not Facebook’s policies on hate speech, bullying, or graphic violence, which the company says Jones violated. And not Jones, who’s been doing essentially the same nasty shtick for years.

No, what changed was Facebook’s interpretation of the policies—an interpretation that appears to have been driven in large part by public perception. In short, Facebook’s reversal has the whiff of a PR move. And maybe, in a weird way, that’s OK.

In a remarkable coincidence (or not), Facebook’s action on Jones came the morning after Apple took down his podcast (and other Infowars podcasts), and the same morning that Spotify did the same. YouTube quickly followed suit, booting the Alex Jones Channel. Things got so bad for Jones by midday Monday that media platforms were practically racing to take down his content before the news cycle moved on. Even YouPorn banned him.

By Tuesday, Twitter was one of the last major platforms where he still had a presence.
The cascade of crackdowns suggests one of two things. Either Jones was in violation of media platforms’ policies all along, and they never noticed until now; or the platforms moved the goal posts. Neither reflects particularly well on the platforms in terms of the consistency, objectivity, or fairness of their enforcement. Nor does it help that they all seemed to be waiting for one another to make the first move. That’s cowardly....

Right-wing groups will mount pressure campaigns to get them to ban liberal personalities, in the spirit of the recent campaigns against Guardians of the Galaxy director James Gunn and newly hired New York Times editorial board member Sarah Jeong. Gunn was fired by Disney; Jeong apologized and the Times stuck by her. We can expect similar inconsistencies from the tech platforms as they muddle their way through one controversy after the next.

That sounds bad, and it probably will be. But the reality is that the platforms don’t have it all figured out, and never did. They have objective-sounding policies and some processes in place, sure. But deciding who can and cannot speak on social media is not an easy question, and it can’t be answered without difficult trade-offs. Sooner or later, controversies like this one over Jones were inevitable.

The silver lining behind the fracas is that Facebook, Google, and others are finally being forced to reckon with just how hard these questions are. Making decisions based on public pressure isn’t a great look, but it’s better for giant corporations to be responsive to public pressure than for them to be immune to it. Sometimes that will mean that they make cowardly choices that hurt people unfairly. Other times, it will mean that they realize their policies were flawed and improve them.

It’s a messy process, this taking of responsibility for the content on social media platforms. But it’s a necessary one. And it has only just begun."

It's a new kind of the tower of Babel. Only this time instead of leading to a kind of self assurance that would lead to claims of grandeur followed by a confusion of the language, this tower is going to obscure ideas. But the result seems to be the same, confusion. Both events will ultimately have the legacy of having destroyed unity and scattered the people.

As much as I think Alex Jones is a fruit loop, he has the right to make a living like everybody else, especially if it's by voicing his opinion -- exercising his First Amendment right -- no matter how weird or misinformed his opinion may be. I believe he's wrong on 9/11/2001. I certainly believe he's dead wrong on the Sandy Hook shooting. That said, it's his Constitutional right to make such claims that they were either inside jobs or false flags. For him to be silenced is the first salvo in the final assault on the First Amendment.